memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Sulfur/Archive2009
This user believes in keeping talk page conversations in one place. If you leave a comment here, expect a reply on this page. Blah! :For older discussions, see the 2006 archives, the 2007 archives, or the 2008 archives. Jlandeen Sulfur I appreciate you constantly cleaning up my work. I am learning as I go, sorry if I am hurting more than I am helping. I noticed just now on my last images you cleaned up the "Riker" "Picard" links. I WILL eventually start doing that correctly haha, again im sorry I'm trying.!!--Jlandeen 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :Best way to do things is that when you are editing, use the "Preview" button. Click on the links (opening them in a new window/tab) to ensure that the links are going where you think that they should be going. Also, note that on images, the description goes before the license. Just use the same format/order that I put on your talk page. Oh, and don't put the ":" at the start of the category, else those images will not be categorized. -- sulfur 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC) not sure i understand what you mean by "don't put the ":" at the start of the category, else those images will not be categorized." Do you have an example?--Jlandeen 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :Load up an image. Look at the bottom of the webpage that loads. You'll see some categories listed. Edit that image with the button at the top of the webpage. You'll see that the category is in this format: ::Category:Memory Alpha images :If you put in the category in this format: ::Category:Memory Alpha images :It merely creates a link to the category, but does not categorize it. When trying to put something into a category... that's bad. When trying to say "see also here because you're looking in the wrong place", that's not so bad. :) -- sulfur 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Excellent explanation! I will make note of that.--Jlandeen 13:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :P.S. When responding to conversations on talk pages, indent to the same level each time. So, if you started the conversation, you don't indent in it, at all. If you're the first respondant, indent once, etc. See for details. It's not the same way every other wiki does it, but it works well here. -- sulfur 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Noted :) I was familiar with a different setup that I thought I saw being used here, where each response becomes indented with the intent of organizing the responses :) But now I know!--Jlandeen 14:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC) thank you :) thanks for your cleanup of my userpage. I'm still learning all the functions of this place, so it's a little rough at times. I'm still very reliant the tips that the site gives me. --Fleurdelista 05:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Redirect is not proper We don't even have a source or anything saying it will be in the game, or any reason to believe plans for it to be there are finalized. That is precisely why I put it up for deletion, if you read my comments. You really should have commented yourself or something rather than deleting the discussion as well, when it pertained to your very choice of action. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC) :Well, the other option is to add it to the deleted pages (ie, cannot re-create) like the stuff for the new movie. In fact... that may be a better option. I'll do that now. :) -- sulfur 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Works for me. We've been getting a lot of rumors on that page covered as "ostensibly" and stuff, too, which is partly why I am so doubtful. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) :Well, apparently they're putting up a "road to " thing right now that's apparently all been approved in the grand road map of the Trek story, and that's all leading into the game's release. So I'm told. :) -- sulfur 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 47 I recently added in the background section for the Voyager episode a reference to 47 which appeared on a display screen in that episode. This reference was later deleted with the explanation that we only list 47 references if they are citeable. I'm just wondering what that means, as I've never seen citations on most of the other 47 references listed. Just looking for some clarification, as I'm relatively new here. Thanks! Betasigx20 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :Those references are (slowly) being cleaned up. But the gist is... unless there's a production source that says "we meant to put this 47 in because it's a cool number" :) -- sulfur 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC) I see. That's too bad... I kind of enjoyed looking for the references. I'd never heard of this until I read the 47 page here at Memory Alpha, but I've been noticing them ever since. Is the goal then to eventually delete all of the references to 47 listed in the background information of the episodes? I can't imagine there are more than one or two examples where production staff specifically stated it was there, beyond what is written on the 47 page where it states it is included in "virtually every episode of all the modern series." -- Betasigx20 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Undos thanks. looks like i didn't revert far enough. — Morder 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you Just wanted to say Thank You. I appreciate you fixing the pages on Memory Beta that I worked on, as well as the heads up on how to do things right the first time. Again, Thank you. – Commander Phoenix 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Edits Thanks, Sulfur. These edits are fine and correct. Nilva is a good source, believe me. ;) – Tom 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Title and name redirect policy :Moved to here... Bad user page I don't think this page or the picture on it belongs. User:LadyClump Vince 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :I agree... something not kosher seems to be going on. See "Forum:Sir Christopher A Green Esq - Lady Clump" as well. -- Renegade54 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Countdown summary Hey, Sulf. Were you planning on writing the summary for "Countdown, Number One"? If not, I can take a crack at it this weekend, time permitting. A spoiler template will be required, though, since it deals with elements from the upcoming movie. --From Andoria with Love 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC) :I was going to, but you're welcome to take a hit on it. :) -- sulfur 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Alrighty, I'll go ahead and do that now. Thanks :) --From Andoria with Love 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Vulcan I think that the Vulcan page needs to be edited. Namely the *Ahem* "Vulcan Posterior" picture. I would enjoy being able to read about Vulcans WITHOUT seeing a 'Vulcan Posterior' on my screen! At least someone STOP PUTTING IT BACK! I taken it off like 10 times, and it keeps coming back. Martok42 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC) :Stop removing it then. Add to the relevant talk page discussing rationally why it should be removed. Do note that it was on the aired version, and it is also on the DVD version of the episode. It's seen. It's in evidence. To this point, nobody has given a valid reason why it should not be there. -- sulfur 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Boeing Would you say something at Talk:747 about it please. I'm sorry, I did it too, I guess it's time to just stop the reversions/page edits until it's sorted out. See you there. --TribbleFurSuit 01:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) :I think that it looks fine as is. It's never called a "Boeing 747", but (as far as I know) that's the only manufacturer. One simple line as to a "likely" source, which justifies the WP link to the . Without that likely correlation, the WP link starts to seem like speculation. Really, the same applies to "Spitfire", but who knew that the full name of a Spitfire was "Supermarine Spitfire"? I didn't! :) -- sulfur 01:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC) I know you think it's fine the way it is. You made it the way it is. The right place to do this is at Talk:747, where arguments against what you did were made before you did it, and where you were invited to talk about what should wind up being done. At least I explained myself there before my own reversion. --TribbleFurSuit 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC) :Hell, to be honest, it looked fine well before we all got involved randomly editing it again today. -- sulfur 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot for your help :) Hey Sulfur. Thanks for your help with the editing guidelines and whatnot. Not sure if this is the appropriate place to voice my thanks, been using Memory Alpha for a while now (for Star Trek info); this site owns the official Star Trek Encyclopedia N times over. Got a quick question for ya: is it possible to make some edits to a page, but to have it "hidden" or in "preview" mode. i.e.: is it possible to make some edits on a page, and NOT have it go "live", but so it can wait for some pro-users (like yourself) to check it before the changes are "finalized", and the changes become live on the page? Once again, thanks! Ubcphysicsyangbo 01:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) :Sadly, no. Alas. But have no fear, you'll improve with time. We all started poorly. :) -- sulfur 01:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) ::Hey thanks again for the useful links...will be sure to observe all the guidelines to the best of my abilities next time. Just curious though, you seem to be on Memory Alpha quite a lot eh? Hehehe. Ubcphysicsyangbo 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Oh btw I just went on your 'deleted pages' section and read some of the titles of either people or I guess their usernames that were deleted by you, mannnnnnn, some people are so nasty and stupid eh? And I don't understand why somebody needs to create a page on P*NIS on Memory Alpha... Ubcphysicsyangbo 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC) User:JKH3942 Hi, I just looked through recent changes and noticed a user who goes by JKH3942. Since I also noticed you were the one who welcomed him, I feel compelled to warn you that he maybe bad news, since he caused some trouble over at Stargate Wiki (creating nonsensical duplicated pages, posting false messages by posing as other people, blanking pages when he doesn't get his way, including from something ridiculous like someone cleaning up after him), check out his contribution list there if you feel like it. I'm not saying you should ban him right away, I'm just saying that you and others should keep an eye on him. Thanks for your time. -- Matthew R Dunn 15:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC) me too --bp 18:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Countdown #2 cover Hey, did I say you could leave? :-P Anyways, you wouldn't happen to have an image of the actual cover for Countdown, Number Two, would you? All I can find is the image that's on the cover, but it actually has the title on the cover. --From Andoria with Love 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Request Please temporarily autoconfirm protect my user talk page. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC) :Done. You have to be a registered user for the next 36hrs to post on your page. We'll see what happens after that. :) -- sulfur 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much :-) --OuroborosCobra talk 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Image Categories. 1. I had thought that since one could not really make out any obviously Borg things in some of the images I uploaded for ) that had Seven of Nine, it was not necessary to classify them as Borg. From your doing so I assume that that assumption was incorrect? 2. I see you classified Image:Seven Finds Paris VOY One.jpg (BTW I put that one up for deletion, as I found it to be uneccessary) under Humans. This is a rather broad category, considering that a very large percentage of images on MA have at least one Human in them. Shat exactly qualifies an image for this category; a close up of a Human, a Human as central to the story the image is from, or just having at least one Human in it? – [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) :Generally, if there's a Klingon, a Romulan, and a Human, the idea would be to put it into all three categories. :) -- sulfur 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Tense I understand the reasoning behind using past tense to refer to people and events, and even agree with it, but the specific example I changed wasn't referring to an event, it was an encyclopedic statement; "A neural parasite is an alien lifeform that attach'es' itself to the nervous system of a host creature" sounds better than "A neural parasite was an alien lifeform that attach'ed' itself to..." Having it in the past tense makes little sense, as we are describing a type of animal, not a specific animal at a point in time. I'm fully willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Captain J 23:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC) : I agree. It does sound awkward. Sorry that policy never made much sense to me either :) – Distantlycharmed 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC) ::It may sound awkward, but it's still a was, and we do it for consistency. We tried mixing and matching before, and it was more awkward, since half the articles were present tense, half past, and some in a variety of other poorly constructed tenses. As it stands, it's the policy, it's the practice, and it's been argued ad infinitum over and over again, and we still have it. So... use it. -- sulfur 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC) :So you think something should be kept, even though it sounds not only awkward but also wrong, for the sake of consistency? How about requiring the use of common sense? I am sure that would be possible. Someone reading sentences like the above will think that someone made a mistake. That's what I thought when I first saw an entry like that. Anyway, no use arguing this here...not like anyone would ever think about changing anything. – Distantlycharmed 02:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC) :::Our resistance to changing certain things comes form the fact that much of the established policies on MA came after enormous debate and work, and we don't want to repeat all of that every time someone new comes along. The tense thing, for example, was one of the longest debates I remember in my entire time on Memory Alpha. We just don't want to open that can of worms again. These weren't arbitrarily arrived at. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Keep up the good work! I just have to say - I had no idea you were an admin until you merged the Bones & Leonard McCoy pages together. I'm glad that you get out there and interact with everyone, unlike many admins I've seen. Anyway, just stopped by to say keep up the good work! *thumbs up* :) -- Interrupt feed 00:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Carbon Why is it incomplete? Because it is not specifically referencing those episodes in the Reference section? Your comments were unclear.– Distantlycharmed 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC) :That's precisely it. See its talk page. -- sulfur 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC) :: Got it. Just wanted to make sure I guess. Thx. – Distantlycharmed 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Category:Blu-ray Discs Hey thanks! Good looking out. --The Immortal Selene 12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)